Technical decision-making, a topic related to choice, being a R&D person and becoming a senior R&D person/architect of the team means having more resources to influence. At the same time, there will also be cases where some wrong decisions, without positive feedback, will be implemented.
There are three main reasons for architects to make wrong decisions in technical solutions
-
Insufficient knowledge : The content of technical decisions is beyond the current scope of personal cognition, such as new technologies, new fields, and new businesses. The review process is not clear about the relevant content, and it is difficult to find potential risks in the plan.
-
Selfish drive : The technical solution is optimal for the individual (or related), but not optimal for the team. For example, the benefits of a certain project are relatively large, but the long-term maintenance costs of the team and the probability of generating risks will increase.
-
Insufficient energy : due to scheduling reasons, some meetings have conflicts, or the time is too tight, resulting in the failure to clarify the background, reasons and relevant details of the plan, the technical decision-making process goes through the motions, and there is no interaction in the whole process, such as lack of energy to participate in the meeting or the meeting process Interrupted by something more superior, etc.
How to avoid the above three reasons? As an architect, you can promote some methods, mainly the following four.
-
Take the initiative to ask questions : Generally speaking, for a technical solution to be reviewed, unless the reviewers are excellent enough and consider extremely comprehensive, there will inevitably be risk points. The discovery of risk points is related to the depth of the reviewers' understanding of the field and the degree of exposure of the risk points. Low-level risk points are relatively easy to spot. For more in-depth risks, multiple inquiries are required to discover the risk point. Regarding the question, the risk point is here, and it must be triggered sooner or later. If you don’t ask questions, the cost of repairing the risk will be higher in the later stage.
-
Collaborative decision-making : Collaborative decision-making is also an effective way to avoid risks. There are two main situations: 1) In areas where you are not good at, look for experts in the field to check and discover potential risks in advance; 2) Collaborative parties, because technical solutions are generated Changes, and have an impact on the relevant personnel or business, or need to collaborate to build the capabilities of the product, the technical solution review must not be missing the collaborating party. Even if it can be done completely, it is necessary to pull the relevant personnel together to align, and the relevant personnel know that this matter is in progress, so as to avoid conflicts between some parallel work.
-
Sticking to the Bottom Line : What is the Bottom Line? It seems that this word is a bit exaggerated. The objective position is different, the bottom line is naturally different, the goal is different, and the bottom line is also different. As an architect, you represent the team goal. The technical solution needs to be more reasonable and more comprehensive. See A little further, not allowing the team to be in a passive state for a long time is considered a pass. To sum up, the big principles and bottom line cannot be changed by one person, encourage and support those who conform to the values of the team, and prompt and correct those that do not conform to the values of the team.
-
Prioritization : Prioritization is not just about important things. Regardless of the importance of things, if you go online with risks, the result is that someone needs to pay for it. Prioritization refers to giving priority to ensuring that it is related to yourself under limited energy. Matters to be effectively involved, identify the need for personal involvement, and avoid meaningless investment of resources. When personal energy is insufficient, priority can be given to the follow-up order of matters, or an agent can follow up to help solve practical problems in the process of technical decision-making (discussion), so as to avoid someone who is in charge of one thing, but has no energy to invest. Case.
Similarly, for the plan promoted by the architect, it is necessary to conduct review and align the goals. As the promoter of the review, prepare complete and effective information in advance and synchronize it to the relevant participants, which is to avoid wrong decisions during the review process. fundamental.
Other references
-
[Architecture optimization process thinking] Quality is higher than efficiency
-
[Thinking about the process of architecture optimization] Avoid random trial and error
-
【Thinking about the process of architecture optimization】Continuous technological innovation
-
[Thinking about the Architecture Optimization Process] The Value of Specifications in R&D Work
-
[Thinking about the Architecture Optimization Process] Five Key Points of CR
-
[Thinking about the Architecture Optimization Process] The Significance of Communication